Tag: gun control

Joe Biden Rolls Out ATF Gun-Trafficking “Strike Forces” to Crack Down on Gun Ownership

According to Liz George of American Military Forces,  “The forces will be a coordinated effort between U.S. Attorneys and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), as well as state and local law enforcement.”

“Working with our local partners to tackle violent crime is one of the Justice Department’s most important responsibilities,” declared Attorney General Merrick B. Garland in a statement. “Today, the department is taking another concrete step to address violent crime and illegal firearms trafficking. Our firearms trafficking strike forces will investigate and disrupt the networks that channel crime guns into our communities with tragic consequences. This effort reflects our shared commitment to keep communities safe.”

On top of that, the administration is working to establish “zero tolerance for rogue gun dealers that willfully violate the law.” These new zero tolerance policies will consist of revoking gun dealers’ federal licenses who break federal law.

Keep reading

Why Do Democrats Keep Warning They’ll Unleash the Horrors of Nuclear War on American Citizens?

The left has proven its ire for gun owners time and time again — that is no secret. But what can be said about President Joe Biden’s and California Democratic Rep. Eric Swalwell’s flirtations with the idea of taking on gun owners with nuclear force?

Biden’s adamant push for gun control measures has sparked intense debate around the nation, leading some state leaders to step up and enact their own legislation to uphold and defend the constitutional right to bear arms.

But gun-grabbing Democrats are well aware that their moves against the Second Amendment wouldn’t happen so easily. Instead of enacting their despotic plans all at once and throwing Americans into a pot of boiling water from which we would resist and jump out, they have opted to slowly turn up the heat instead.

And things just got another degree hotter.

During his more than three decades as a Delaware senator, his eight-year run as vice president and his 2020 presidential candidacy, Biden has championed gun restrictions without reserve. Now he does so from the Oval Office.

Keep reading

‘Hands Up Don’t Nuke’: Biden Ripped Over Gun Remarks That Counter Democrat Narrative Of Jan 6 Riot

President Joe Biden faced continued backlash for controversial remarks that he made on Wednesday about Americans who purchase firearms as a safeguard against a tyrannical government, with critics noting that Biden’s remarks counter the narrative that Democrats and the media have pushed about the riot at the U.S. Capitol Building on January 6.

“The Second Amendment, from the day it was passed, limited the type of people who could own a gun and what type of weapon you could own,” Biden said. “You couldn’t buy a cannon. [Those who] say the blood of the, the blood of patriots, you know, and all this stuff about how we’re going to have to move against the government.”

“Well, the tree of liberty is not [watered with] the blood of patriots, what’s happened is that there never been, if you want, if you think you need to have weapons to take on the government, you need F-15s and maybe some nuclear weapons,” Biden continued. “The point is that there’s always been the ability to limit, rationally limit, the type of weapon that can be owned, and who can own it.”

Independent journalist Glenn Greenwald responded to a tweet that showed Biden’s remarks from Wednesday next to remarks that he made earlier this year when responding to the riot. Biden said regarding the riot, “Our democracy is under unprecedented assault.”

“You cannot believe both of these things to be true simultaneously,” journalist Drew Holden wrote.

“Precisely,” Greenwald responded. “Biden’s mockery of the citizenry – you think you can threaten the US Govt with guns? You need F-15s and nukes for that – shows how moronic is the depiction of a few hundred MAGA protesters as a threat to the stability of history’s most militarized and armed government.”

Keep reading

Editor’s note: You could absolutely buy a cannon in that day and age. Biden is, again, a liar.

Appeals court puts hold on overturning California assault weapon ban

A U.S. federal appeals court on Monday put on hold a judge’s ruling this month to overturn California’s 32-year-old ban on assault weapons.

A three-judge panel in the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals issued a stay of U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez’s June 4 order, after California officials had appealed the federal judge’s decision to strike down the ban on assault-style weapons.

California Attorney General Rob Bonta, who had appealed against the decision to overturn the ban, said the state’s assault weapons laws would remain in effect while appellate proceedings continue.

“We won’t stop defending these life-saving laws,” Bonta said on Twitter.

Keep reading

Biden Is Cracking Down On Guns Again With AR-15 Pistol Ban, And He’s Using Heller To Do It

On June 10, the Department of Justice (DOJ) posted, in the Federal Register, a notice of proposed rulemaking and request for public comment, concerning firearms such as AR-15 pistols equipped with “stabilizing braces.” To bolster its position, the DOJ cited the Supreme Court’s decision in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008).

Before explaining how Heller comes to bear in this instance, some background is in order. Stabilizing braces were developed in 2013 to help wounded former military servicemen and other disabled Americans use, one-handed, AR-15s and similar firearms equipped with a barrel under 16 inches in length to reduce weight. But there’s a rub.

The National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA) doesn’t define “pistol” or “handgun,” but it defines “rifle” as a firearm that, among other things, is “intended to be fired from the shoulder.” Furthermore, it requires federal registration and a $200 tax for any “rifle” less than 26 inches in overall length or having a barrel less than 16 inches in length, commonly referred to as a “short-barreled rifle” (SBR).

Because AR-15s and similar firearms are usually rifles, with shoulder stocks so they may be “fired from the shoulder,” the question has been whether such a firearm, having never been assembled as a rifle, but instead having been assembled from the outset as a pistol using a stabilizing brace instead of a stock, and a barrel shorter than 16 inches, would be considered a handgun or an SBR.

In 2014, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) issued a letter to a manufacturer of stabilizing braces, stating, “[W]e have determined that firing a pistol from the shoulder would not cause the pistol to be reclassified as an SBR … Generally speaking, we do not classify weapons based on how an individual uses a weapon.”

In 2015, the agency issued a seemingly contradictory letter, stating that “the pistol stabilizing brace was neither ‘designed’ nor ‘intended’ to be used as a shoulder stock, and therefore use as a shoulder stock constitutes a ‘redesign’ of the device,” implying that a firearm so configured might be subject to the NFA. In 2017, the BATFE issued a private letter to a brace manufacturer saying the 2015 letter had been incorrect.

Keep reading